 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12-5-2015 11:44, Stephen wrote:
> On 12/05/2015 09:50, scott wrote:
>>> Just read your reply to Le_Forgeron.
>>> 1. then 2.
>>> Not forgetting yourself.
>>
>> None of them can save themselves (climbing out is not possible), they
>> have to be winched out one at a time. Luckily you're the one tasked to
>> rescue them, not one of the ones trapped.
>>
>
> Any other criteria that you have forgotten to mention? :-P
Indeed! For instance: is the water rising rapidly or not? How much time
is there to save (most of) them?
>
> In that case it will be the person in the cave, mine who is elected (by
> the people there) who would decide the order of who goes out.
> To be honest this exercise is so contrived that it is very unrealistic.
The choice is left to the persons in the cave/mine, definitively. If
speed is an issue,/and/ speed of action also depends on the people
trapped, I guess the fastest/fittest people first to get most people
saved. That's a tough one to decide. If only speed matters and the
victims are helpless without the outside, it doesn't matter much who
gets out first. The most altruistic will probably die (as is shown in RL
examples).
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/05/2015 11:51, clipka wrote:
>
> I guess most people would go for the stereotypical "women and children
> first" approach.
That is the Birkenhead rule, btw.
And I hope that there would be no children working down the mine.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Indeed! For instance: is the water rising rapidly or not? How much time
> is there to save (most of) them?
I don't remember the exact details, but the rate of rise of water was
given as a range of values, the worst case was bad enough that there
would be nowhere near enough time to get everyone out.
> The choice is left to the persons in the cave/mine, definitively. If
> speed is an issue,/and/ speed of action also depends on the people
> trapped, I guess the fastest/fittest people first to get most people
> saved. That's a tough one to decide. If only speed matters and the
> victims are helpless without the outside, it doesn't matter much who
> gets out first. The most altruistic will probably die (as is shown in RL
> examples).
Indeed, it's going to get messy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 May 2015 09:50:27 +0100, scott wrote:
> None of them can save themselves (climbing out is not possible), they
> have to be winched out one at a time.
Assuming all are equally rescuable, start with the lightest, and while
that's happening, look for an alternate solution that allows more than
one at a time to be rescued, or look for a way to deal with the flooding.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> None of them can save themselves (climbing out is not possible), they
>> have to be winched out one at a time.
>
> Assuming all are equally rescuable, start with the lightest, and while
> that's happening, look for an alternate solution that allows more than
> one at a time to be rescued, or look for a way to deal with the flooding.
That's a good call to start with the lightest - IIRC they were given no
details about the speed variability of the winch (this was a task set by
HR rather than the engineering team!), but it's possible it would go
faster with a lighter load. It certainly wouldn't go slower.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 May 2015 08:44:13 +0100, scott wrote:
>>> None of them can save themselves (climbing out is not possible), they
>>> have to be winched out one at a time.
>>
>> Assuming all are equally rescuable, start with the lightest, and while
>> that's happening, look for an alternate solution that allows more than
>> one at a time to be rescued, or look for a way to deal with the
>> flooding.
>
> That's a good call to start with the lightest - IIRC they were given no
> details about the speed variability of the winch (this was a task set by
> HR rather than the engineering team!), but it's possible it would go
> faster with a lighter load. It certainly wouldn't go slower.
That's one thought - the other thought I had was starting with the
lightest also is less likely to cause a catastrophic failure of the
winch. You wouldn't want to start with someone who weighed 300 pounds
and have the winch break.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
